As an incumbent PM facing an opposition leader with as poor personal ratings as Ed Miliband’s it has been apparent for a long time that the best outcome for DC would be for no debates to take place. Why give Ed a platform that puts him equal with Dave?
Comments
He'll be coming for Cameron. Presidential. But won't answer questions or debate with anyone.
Brave Sir Dave ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Dave turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Dave!
("I never!")
CAMERON - You're too chicken to debate the Greens
MILLIBAND - I'll debate anyone
CAMERON - See! He's chicken! He won't debate the Greens so I won't debate anyone
Also, a tactical retreat can make sense. And if it destroys the ridiculous debates, I wouldn't mind a bit.
Anyway, a day dominated by a debate about the debates is another day closer to the GE without a magic bullet for the Tories.
The same brains trust thinking that whine up when Frau Merkel's boot polisher suggests that X,Y and Z cannot be renegotiated hence Dave should throw himself into the pit of abject failure.
Dave wants early debates and not many debates - and getting one with just him and Ed would also be beneficial. Lets see what is agreed...
Still, It doesn't really matter. Prospective Con voters in marginals aren't going to vote for ed & not vote for dave because ed says he's weak. The dave running scared narrative will ding UKIP's dong though, which I guess is the point.
Can't promise to splash around a bit chunk of money on all his favourite causes, because there isn't any, and people are likely to point out the reason there isn't any is because of the last Labour government which he was part of.
Can't announce a proper tax rise because it will scare the horses at the very least, and might well get respectable economists going on TV and accusing him of putting the recovery at risk, or wrecking the economy.
Can't play the prudence and responsibility card, because if he starts to look like he is even thinking about the merest possibility of supporting even some of the cuts his left wing will peel off to the Greens. Everyone knows he is going to have to make lots of cuts, but he can't say it or Mr MccLuskey will take away his pocket money.
Can't try and gee up the wavering WWC voters with a bit of law and order (especially after France) and a bit of flag waving, because his Guardianistas will have a fit and join either the LDs or the Greens
All he has left is making promises to batter unpopular businesses with much less profitability than the public believe over the head, and promise to make them be "fair", by which he means make a loss. Whilst trying to put a figleaf over the budget deficit by wittering about mansion taxes and gun license which won't pay the interest on the deficit for a fortnight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30808252#dna-comments
Not representative, but still.. interesting.
As we speak, UKIP voters (who didn't defect from the Tories anyway it transpires) - inspired by Dave running away from even mentioning Europe or Immigration in his list of issues, and Dave running away from debating with Farage - are running back to the Tory camp as we speak!
Go look out the window! You will see streams of the lovable fruitcakes running back to the waiting arms of Shapps Green Fox who's standing at the end of that German road on that poster he signed off waiting for them. Look now!
Too late, you missed them.......
As it is, Cameron will be able to declare a win when the Greens are included. Short-term pain. In the meantime, people are talking about the Greens, which suits.
Its pretty shameful to weaponize energy anyway.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0f/TheWhiteFeather.jpg/220px-TheWhiteFeather.jpg
Alternatively, he gets his way and gets the Greens included in the 'other parties' debate, which, objectively, is a not unreasonable position, if the idea is to hear a selection of different views from outside the potential parties of government.
<<Julius Nicholson>> You see what I'm doing? I'm eating your spin (onion bhajee) and replacing it with the actual facts.<</Julius Nicholson>>
It would also highlight Mr Miliband as Mr Murphy's boss. Make too little of a fuss and they look absurd/cowardly. You see the dilemma?
On a practical point: there is no such thing as Scottish TV: the broadcasts do not respect tbe border. Which raises the possibility of the broadcasts into Scotland being closed down by legal action (it has happened before) with the loss of those English viewers who also rely on the same transmitters.
But you know that, of course.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
You Tories are all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.
If nothing else, our nige is going to need a sense of humour....
I think it's all about the pressure.
The result of that debate wasn't Farage killing a giant, but Clegg failing to regain credibility and Farage benefiting from having been generally considered to have won by a distance.
So he avoided a battle that he would lose, only to be killed by an unanswerable question. He who lives and runs away lives to fight another day!
Some bloke waving a pint around....Who on earth is going to vote for that?
I don't see the point in a party that is contesting less than 10% of the seats in the country as a whole being involved in a debate that is broadcast to 100% of the country. A hypothetical voter in Devon isn't given the opportunity to vote for an SNP candidate, so from a practical point of view it would be nonsensical to have the SNP in the nationwide debates.
It's an unsatisfactory solution for any democratically inclined person whatever the judgement next time is. The original problem lies further south, and only the Tories and UKIP are true UK wide parties. I've seen an analysis which argues that the various debate proposals do not make any sense whatsoever criteria one uses. (I know it's Wings - but the logic is the same for far more than just the SNP.)
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-second-class-nation/#more-65303
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/555377299139612672
If Cameron thought Farage wasn't up to it, he would be saying "bring it on". However, having seen what happened in the Clegg v Farage Eurogeddon debates, he knows that there is a significant chance that Farage will give him a total kicking. Hence his No Green, No Blue strategy.
This whole game theory approach is based on Cameron being weaker than Farage when they're put up there with an objective moderator. You know this. I know this. CCHQ knows this. Which is why they can't have Cameron on stage looking foolish next to the guy.
Sod the leadership debates. If the South Thanet hustings got televised now, I reckon it would bag a few million.
Thus the Prime Minister of the day only agrees to a debate when he is well behind and desperate for any opportunity to change the narrative. Cameron is not that far behind. Brown was. Presumably debates didn't happen in 1997 because Blair was so far ahead, while in 2010 Cameron's advantage over Brown was not so strong.
Sadly, it really isn't at all about policies, or arguments. Like most of modern politics it is about image.
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
I'll grant you that Farage is particularly good at populist nonsense, yes. But we knew that.
I wonder if Nige's ego will take 4 months of constant ribbing.
First FUKP party political's alright:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tADgYkAfXro
Fight!!!
Perhaps the Pub landlord should be included in the debates too
'finally a serious opponent in South Thanet...'
POW
I don't think you can say the same about the SNP and the English Democrats.
Tim Shipman@ShippersUnbound·4 mins4 minutes ago
A joke that is also a genuinely important development. @almurray could actually prevent Farage winning: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/01/14/al-murrays-pub-landlord-launches-election-campaign/#.VLaH0JF1nvA.twitter …
I've had junior employees like this. They'll make an excuse for anything.
If Cameron had faith that his arguments were better than Farage's he'd debate him. But he doesn't. So he won't.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ph2go8efpw/RedBoxResults_150109_leaders_debates_Website.pdf
Perhaps SNP inclusion could be another redline for Dave, in the other parties debate. At the end of the day he has nothing to lose, but Ed has the whole of Scotland to lose, Sturgeon at the table with no Murphy would be a blow for SLAB. I think Ed would fight to keep the SNP out.
This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.
Really? You think the public really care about this? LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#mediaviewer/File:UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png
Cameron's position is significantly stronger than Brown's was.
SLAB are not a separate party, so Mr Miliband has to stand for them.
On a wider issue, there is the point that polling shows that the southron voters would evidently quite like to hear what the SNP have to say. It may even be relevant to them in more ways than one expects, given the party's distinctive policies quite apart from those on indy.